Clinton is going to take it from the nutty left

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Here is why I think Clinton said it:

1. Clinton isn't a nutty leftist like Moore and Kerry.
2. Clinton believes in doing what is best for America.
3. I believe Clinton when he said that he likes the Bush family.

1. Clinton has always been more hawkish than the Democratic core, they would go along with him since he was a Democrat but when Bush does the same types of things they get bent out of shape.

2. I agree with Clinton's assesment of the situation Bush was in. With the news of Putin saying he gave intel to Bush that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks in the United States it just gives me more reason why we did the right thing. I think the media is under reporting that.
3. I also think that Clinton is trying to atone for his affairs. I have said multiple times that if someone like Clinton was running for office that believed in more liberal economic policies, tought on national defense, and not a nutty leftist, I could vote for him. Too bad the Democrats think they are losing because they are not playing to their radical socialist base.

4. Clinton does I think like the Bush family. The Bush's have never been rude or attacking of him. Bush Sr. didn't say a word during Clinton's whole mess in the 90's and the worst thing Bush Jr. said was that he would restore honour to the White House. That isn't mild compared to what the Democrats have said about Bush.

I just wish the Democratic party would be smart and dump that idiot John "I'm a war hero" Kerry and put someone in like Seantor Bayh.

On why he didn''t sh*t can Freeh:
""But since the FBI chief (Freeh)gets a presumptive 10-year term, I didn''t feel what I thought was outrageous treatment of us, particularly by him personally, was worth replacing him, because all of you [in the media] would have said, Well, he''s doing it because he''s got something to hide, and I didn''t have anything to hide,"" he tells TIME.

Priorities of Clinton:
1. Presentation of his Administration by the Media.

2. Safety of Americans.

This is the reason many though Clinton should be removed from his office - he lost credibility. He was unable to pursue Bin Laden, Hussein, or make necessary changes such as removing Freeh because the media would perceive it that he was trying to hide something related to Lewinsky. Well you got Clinton for the remainder of his term. Hope it was worth it.

The reason why Clinton supports the ""Iraq thing"" is because the intelligence used to support it was collected during his administration and cited by him as authentic and verifiable. Everything Clinton does and says is to protect his alleged legacy.

Even the New York times is getting tired of his old song and dance...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/20/bo...

""Part of the problem, of course, is that Mr. Clinton is concerned, here, with cementing "” or establishing "” his legacy, while at the same time boosting (or at least not undermining) the political career of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.""

""He writes at length about his awareness that terrorism was a growing threat, but does not grapple with the unintended consequences of his administration''s decisions to pressure Sudan to expel Osama bin Laden in 1996 (driving sent the al Qaeda leader to Afghanistan, where he was harder to track) or to launch cruise missile attacks against targets in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the embassy bombings in 1998 (an act that some terrorism experts believe fueled terrorists'' conviction that the United States was an ineffectual giant that relied on low-risk high technology).""

There is an interesting book to be written about Clinton, a very interesting book. It will just never be written by him.

I''d vote for Clinton again, if I could.

And I realize this will fuel your fires, but I''ll vote for Hilary if she runs in 2008.

And I realize this will fuel your fires, but I''ll vote for Hilary if she runs in 2008.

The way things are going, we should have our first woman President in 2008. I just can''t see Kerry winning this one, and Hillary will be a shoo-in unless we amend the constitution to allow Arnold to run.

"Minase" wrote:
And I realize this will fuel your fires, but I''ll vote for Hilary if she runs in 2008.

The way things are going, we should have our first woman President in 2008. I just can''t see Kerry winning this one, and Hillary will be a shoo-in unless we amend the constitution to allow Arnold to run.

Hilary will never be President. I think the first female President will be Condie Rice.

Will Hillary be the first American balck woman president?

This is the reason many though Clinton should be removed from his office - he lost credibility. He was unable to pursue Bin Laden, Hussein, or make necessary changes such as removing Freeh because the media would perceive it that he was trying to hide something related to Lewinsky. Well you got Clinton for the remainder of his term. Hope it was worth it.

So you''re saying that the thing that prevented Clinton from accomplishing these feats, was his ego [he was too concerned about how the media would spin it]?

Look, I like Clinton plenty, but the Times has got it at least half right on this one. This is all about the inevitable Hillary campaign and softening the Clinton image a bit. I''m not really buying the cementing his legacy thing, as the Iraq and terrorism conflicts are clearly going to get labeled under the Bush name.

That said, no woman has half the chance of being president as Hillary. She is adored by most Democrats, is proving herself a savvy Senator, will have one of the most adept and charismatic politicians of the 20th century campaigning for her, and will turn out the majority gender vote as has never been seen before. Fact is, if Kerry loses the next president of the United States will be Hillary Clinton, likely in a landslide (Republicans have no heir apparent).

Condie Rice is an accomplished professional, but she''s a political clutz. She''s also getting nailed to the cross right next to Colin Powell as sacrificial lambs to the Bush regime image.

I soo do not see Hillary as the presidnt in 2008. I guess we''ll see..

Fact is, if Kerry loses the next president of the United States will be Hillary Clinton, likely in a landslide (Republicans have no heir apparent).

Peggy Noonan did a great article about a month ago listing the reasons why a Republican might consider voting for Kerry in November. Making the above unlikely was one of the most compelling reasons, in my opinion.

EDIT: Whoa, I agree with Rilla on something! I think I''m going to run off to a corner and appear pensive. (see below)

Condie Rice is an accomplished professional, but she''s a political clutz. She''s also getting nailed to the cross right next to Colin Powell as sacrificial lambs to the Bush regime image.

Are lambs ever nailed to crosses? :\\

As a New Yorker, I must stay that I dislike Hillary seriously, but come 2008, I might be forced voting for her on Anyone-But-Bush''s-heir premise.

Are lambs ever nailed to crosses ?

You let me mix my metaphors in peace damn you. I suppose I could stretch for a lamb-of-God thing, but it''s beneath both of us I think.

That said, no woman has half the chance of being president as Hillary. She is adored by most Democrats, is proving herself a savvy Senator, will have one of the most adept and charismatic politicians of the 20th century campaigning for her, and will turn out the majority gender vote as has never been seen before. Fact is, if Kerry loses the next president of the United States will be Hillary Clinton, likely in a landslide (Republicans have no heir apparent).

Hillary is also going to turn out every Republican against her and I don''t think Hillary will draw out the independents. Hillary is further to the left than Bill and doesn''t have the charasima of her husband.

I think Condi would murder Hillary in an election.

Women, Blacks, and Hispanics will wipe Republicans to the floor everytime. They just need a reason to vote. Independents are dramatically overrated, though a good number of them would be very interested in a Clinton presidency. Bill wasn''t centrist because it matches his ideology, he did it because it was what he needed to do against a Gingrich congress. He''s doing it now to bolster his wife, and don''t underestimate how many swing voters will come over seeing Bill on the stump again.

Condi''s got no support base, no political experience, and dramatic baggage from being on the Bush team.

Women, Blacks, and Hispanics will wipe Republicans to the floor everytime. They just need a reason to vote.

When I look at my mother, who believes that women aren''t strong enough to run the country, I heartily disagree with this statement.

Bill wasn''t centrist because it matches his ideology, he did it because it was what he needed to do against a Gingrich congress.

Which is why I truly believe that having a legislature at odds with a White House is the best state our government can be in.

Which is why I truly believe that having a legislature at odds with a White House is the best state our government can be in.

Agreed. Hence, Kerry in ''04!

Which is why I truly believe that having a legislature at odds with a White House is the best state our government can be in.

Actually, I tend to agree. I wish we had one now.

"Dr.Ghastly" wrote:

Agreed. Hence, Kerry in ''04!

Unless the Republicans lose the Senate, too, which would result in an even bigger nightmare than a Republican controlled Leg./Exec.

Nope, can''t take that chance. Not that it matters anyway, Alabama''s 9 votes are a lock for Bush.

Unless the Republicans lose the Senate, too, which would result in an even bigger nightmare than a Republican controlled Leg./Exec.

Well, that''s a matter of opinion. I think we''re close to a pretty serious nightmare now. Thank God the Senate is at least competitive or else it would be some special kind of hell.

Also, I think you can add judicial to your current list there.

Also, I think you can add judicial to your current list there.

No kidding. If we had a president of one party, a senate/congresss of another, and a nicely mixed SCOTUS, then it would be setup with good checks and balances.

I disagree about the judicial branch. O''Connor seems to represent the ""swing vote"" most of the time when cases divide the justices by ideology. If it were truly a conservative SC, UM''s admission policies wouldn''t have been upheld. In my infinite naivete, I prefer to think that the court chooses to listen to arguments before rendering a judgement.

And as far as opinions on which party would be worse if it controlled all branches, I tend to lean toward the opinion that the party that embraces the concept of Big Gov''t to be worse.

I tend to lean toward the opinion that the party that embraces the concept of Big Gov''t to be worse.

So, you mean the Bush Administration then?

"Elysium" wrote:
I tend to lean toward the opinion that the party that embraces the concept of Big Gov''t to be worse.

So, you mean the Bush Administration then? ;)

when compared to the Democrats he is still for the smaller government.

"Elysium" wrote:

So, you mean the Bush Administration then? ;)

... Gawd, that''s so depressing.

Yeah, I voted for Bush so he could push such crap-tastic initiatives like ""No Child Left Behind"" and the Prescription Drug benefit. What is strange to me is that those programs and others like them (i.e. the imported steel tariff) were meant to reach out to the other side of the aisle, but the other side of the aisle chooses to ignore it. I guess I shouldn''t be surprised; it didn''t work for me when Clinton was doing it, so why should this be any different?

And Ulari''s right, of course. At least he''s not a socialist.

I have to disagree that they were meant to reach out across the aisle. There are good reasons that those two programs are so controversial.

when compared to the Democrats he is still for the smaller government.

In practice, I wholeheartedly disagree.

In practice, I wholeheartedly disagree.

Bush has given the Democrats every big social program they have wanted he just isn''t spending what they want.

"sigfry" wrote:

I''d vote for Clinton again, if I could.

And I realize this will fuel your fires, but I''ll vote for Hilary if she runs in 2008.

I''d vote for her.

"Minase" wrote:
And I realize this will fuel your fires, but I''ll vote for Hilary if she runs in 2008.

The way things are going, we should have our first woman President in 2008. I just can''t see Kerry winning this one, and Hillary will be a shoo-in unless we amend the constitution to allow Arnold to run.

Smile when you say that. We are one vote away from the abolition of a dual party system if the knuckleheads get their way.

"Ulairi" wrote:
That said, no woman has half the chance of being president as Hillary. She is adored by most Democrats, is proving herself a savvy Senator, will have one of the most adept and charismatic politicians of the 20th century campaigning for her, and will turn out the majority gender vote as has never been seen before. Fact is, if Kerry loses the next president of the United States will be Hillary Clinton, likely in a landslide (Republicans have no heir apparent).

Hillary is also going to turn out every Republican against her and I don''t think Hillary will draw out the independents. Hillary is further to the left than Bill and doesn''t have the charasima of her husband.

I think Condi would murder Hillary in an election.

Dream on. Talk about lack of qualifications. What makes her an heir apparent to the Bush administration, when much more qualified, and electible GOP candidates are still around?